Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords op-ed piece is getting a lot of praise on Twitter. This is the part of the piece that caught our attention: What they will do is create one fair system for all gun buyers, instead of the giant loophole we have now. Right now, we have one system where responsible gun owners take a background check  And then we have a second system for those who dont want to take a background check. Those people  criminals, or people suffering from mental illness, like the young man who shot me  can buy as many guns as they want on the Internet or at a gun show, no questions asked. Giffords seems to be implying that her shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, didnt undergo a background check. This is not true. Loughner obtained the gun legally, and he passed a background check.

Well, actually, all of the evidence suggests that the Democrat Sheriff passed Jared Lochner, even though he was known to be crazy and had committed an earlier offense that was shrugged off by the local park rangers, because his mother was a powerful Democrat political operative.

The system would have worked if it had not been for the corruption of a bunch of crony Democrats scratching each others’ backs.

He passed the background check because the local Sheriff, a liberal Dem, sh*tcanned the report from the community college declaring Loughner a threat. NICS never got the red flag that would have stopped the loony. He did this because Loughner’s mom was a pal of his, a Corruptocrat just like him who worked for the County.

And then Sheriff Dupnik blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting.

8
posted on 04/07/2013 11:00:15 AM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

Note to wife and family: If I am ever shot in the head, do not parade me around in front of cameras putting stupid and untrue words in my mouth! I’d rather die than live as a professional victim like Brady and Giffords.

The title obviously meant that mark kelley-giffords told gabby to say that. Sadly, I’m not sure she could put that together without the puppet master feeding it to her. And simply, again, they said the perp was mental. The gun wasn’t mental or deranged. It only did what the perp directed it to do. Geez these people are clueless. Or not. Law abiding victims everywhere are getting PO’d.

12
posted on 04/07/2013 11:03:50 AM PDT
by rktman
(BACKGROUND CHECKS? YOU FIRST MR. PRESIDENT!(not that we'd get the truth!))

When liberals talk about background checks, they are not referring to the current instant background checks that people go through now. They want something a lot more invasive and time-consuming. Basically, they want a very long waiting period and a “may issue” LEO driven process. They want to institute background checks similar to how Massachusetts does a CCW request, not just for ccw, but for all gun purchases.

Its not Giffords writing this, its her lunatic husband who refuses to give up his 15 minutes of fame. Gifford’s brain, or whats left of it, is swiss cheese..its her husband calling all the shots now..he runs the show..I always knew he was a schmuck, from the moment I saw him I knew he was a piece of crap

Id be more upset at who orchestrated any statement by Giffords. Good grief, the woman suffered a massive trauma to the brain. Can’t they just let her enjoy life rather than trotting her out as a propaganda piece?!? The inhumanity of the left knows no boundaries.

sh*tcanned the report from the community college declaring Loughner a threat.

I have to admit this gives me pause.

If a community college can issue a report that someone is a threat, then that person should lose a God given right because someone says he's crazy?

My gut tells me that this "mental health" issue is really what the dems are after and this will end up being the compromise...and we're falling into the trap.

Consider this, in the late sixties it was promoted and excepted by many that felons should not be able to by a gun, I mean after all that sounds so reasonable , right?

The fact of the matter is you are stripping the right away from a class of person simply because it is societally acceptable, Constitution be damned....with the support of many here.

Now it has progressed to persons under restraining orders, Misdemeanor "domestic violence" (yell at your spouse in some states and it's considered domestic violence) and on and on.....

Now, with Obama care being instituted, digital medical records, massive data storage facilities being built, technology that allows the government to accumulate data on your every web post and activity couple with every word you uttered to your doctor, well you get my point.

When we get to the point of "someone" deciding who is mentally "fit" to own a firearm, well I think that is a very dangerous road to go down....an I think it is a trap just like the argument in the 60's..."who could support a felon buying a firearm"?

20
posted on 04/07/2013 11:33:25 AM PDT
by Las Vegas Ron
(Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)

If a community college can issue a report that someone is a threat, then that person should lose a God given right because someone says he's crazy?

He was thrown off the campus because he was threatening his teachers and fellow students. It was at the recommendation of a psychiatrist, and it was not lightly done. He was as certifiable as the clown in the movie theater in Colorado, and nothing was done about that either.

If you want to go on record as stating a violently crazy person has a right to a gun, go ahead but you won't find a lot of people who agree with you. Not even the counter worker at Wal-Mart who refused to sell him bullets that morning.

23
posted on 04/07/2013 11:44:28 AM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

When liberals talk about background checks, they are not referring to the current instant background checks that people go through now. They want something a lot more invasive and time-consuming.

I think the leaders of the DemocRat party should set an example for the rest of the country by undergoing the background checks that they are demanding for the rank and file citizen and making those results public.

And that includes King Barry, himself.

26
posted on 04/07/2013 11:53:08 AM PDT
by Fresh Wind
(The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)

I never implied that, I merely stated that this is a dangerous road to go down. Who will have the authority to decide who is mentally fit to own a weapon? Who will set the criteria?

Those are excellent questions that have to be answered, especially in the context of this argument going on about "expanded background checks." Who decides who's too crazy to own a gun? Can a person that crazy ever be rehabilitated to the point they can own one? Psychopaths and Sociopaths lie rather convincingly. The Russians taught us in the 20th Century that "crazy" label can be abused to deprive sane people of their rights, are we inviting the US government to do the same? What other rights are at stake? What damage will be done to HIPAA privacy rights?

29
posted on 04/07/2013 12:23:28 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

I’m glad your Dad was able to get that fixed. Flake, who replaced Kyl, would never do that. He was a very good Representative, but he’s been stabbing conservatives in the back since he was elected Senator. He’s been saying he doesn’t like the “universal background checks,” but I expect him to vote for them. And I wouldn’t even bother McPain’s receptionist.

39
posted on 04/07/2013 1:06:57 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

McStain doesn’t understand the Constitution he has sworn many times to protect and defend. Pick an issue, any issue, and he’ll cave, right at the worst possible moment to inflict maximum damage to conservatives. Such is the nature of RINOs.

42
posted on 04/07/2013 1:28:24 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

In a way, Giffords’ puppet-master is technically correct that Loughner “evaded” a background check. He escaped being listed in NICS when he should have been because of the local crooked Democrat Sheriff. That Sheriff, with help from Obastard, then drew attention away from his own perfidy by blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting. But Mr. Giffords doesn’t want it being broadcast around that the kook who shot his wife was allowed to buy a gun by a Democrat Sheriff who could have stopped him.

Gun Grabby Giffords was shot, and Federal Judge Rolls murdered along with a darling little girl on her birthday, because a local Democrat hack politician conspired with another Pima County official to hide her son’s criminally mental state from NICS. Bottom line.

46
posted on 04/07/2013 1:42:31 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.